An open letter to Steve Jobs about approving the amber alert application
zdziarski.com
zdziarski.com
According to wikipedia the AMBER alert system has helped in the the recovery of 27 children; even this is disputed. Sounds impressive until you remember that thousands of children drown in backyard swimming pools every year. It's absolutely nothing, not even a blip. Sorry, I know it sounds heartless, but facts are facts.
There's a sinister aspect too - by making such a big deal about this essentially dead crime, which isn't even a rounding error on child death statistics, I get a nasty feeling that "the powers that be" are trying to unite the public - united with the govt, of course - against this "pedophile child kidnapper" bogeyman. Again, the numbers suggest this creature is almost, if not completely, non-existent. "But they must be everywhere, right? That's why we had to have AMBER alerts!" Encouraging paranoia, manipulating groups to unite against faceless and unlikely enemies .. I don't like it one bit.
Saved 27 children since inception. All this righteous fuss. Meanwhile, in Africa, 8 children die every minute from preventable diseases. Where's their alert? Where's their iPhone application?
Selective caring. Couldn't give a shit about the thousands of swimming pool deaths. Couldn't care less about childhood obesity or dropping educational standards or manufactured food or childhood deaths in Africa from trivially preventable diseases or child labour in Vietnam which you buy off the shelf at wal-mart but OMG PEDOPHILES APPROVE MY IPHONE APP NOW OR YOU ARE KILLING CHILDREN!
I don't really know how to express my loathing for such people but basically I think they're hypocritical, self-righteous douchebags. I hope and expect Apple to ignore this nonsense.
(updated to reflect the fact that I couldn't cite a good reference for the 55,000 annual swimming pool deaths I originally wrote - replaced with "thousands", which should definitely be safe.)
Where? Not in the US - the total number of drownings (including adults and other bodies of water) is under 4k/year.
http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/wa...
I agree with the sentiment expressed - I'm just quibbling with the numbers used to support it.
http://www.lifesaving.com/issues/articles/13swimming_pool_dr...
.. which has the high number but is hard to interpret and doesn't cite its own sources. It does sound surprisingly high, though, I'll change my comment to "thousands", which I hope you'll agree is "safe".
Levitt cited that when talking about gun deaths in the US, though I'm not sure if you have the figure right.
Thanks, that had been driving me nuts.
Anyways, his larger point is dead on - Apple's opaque and lengthy approval process adds unnecessary business risk for prospective developers.
Whether you want to think about it or not, child sexual abuse is no dead crime. It's alarmingly common. It effects at least 20% of those closest to me - and this only for cases that I know of. From national surveys of adults, (www.unh.edu/ccrc/factsheet/pdf/CSA-FS20.pdf) it's estimated that 9-32% of women and 5-10% of men were subject to sexual abuse during their childhoods (though statistics for criminal reported cases are much lower -- about 1.2 per 1,000 children).
Who is to say that were the law enforcement less vigilant, such abuse wouldn't escalate. In many countries, it does. Particularly in South-East Asia and Eastern Europe, the sex trade is rampant -- Unicef estimates put it at 1 million young sold into the trade per year (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1707763.stm). The amber alert is but one deterrent; the combined effect is likely quite effective.
Who among those arguing for AMBER alerts are campaigning against charity programs to Africa? What instead we have are law enforcement agencies partnering up to work against child abductions and sexual abuse effectively.
Effectively? It is even, by many standards, economical. The economic loss of 27 children would almost certainly exceed the $30 million in funds nationally allocated to it. The biggest tax you pay is in attention, and even there you've already given to it in reaction more attention than it demands. Is there a school program, obesity program, or swimming pool program that would do the same?
There may be more immediately successful uses for said attention and funding abroad. But do those fighting child abductions and absurd donate less money and time to charitable concerns abroad. It is only my impression, but in my corner of the world apparently not. Those concerned with and directly involved in advancing social good are rarely concerned with just one part of it.
Do not, then, begrudge people of the interest in the safety of their children and community, of their charitable work, and of their fears. To do so is not only to deny to human nature some of the most powerful forces for good, but to deny the self-interest that drives our society, without which we would wither.
No one is claiming that no one should worry about abductions. But investing significant resources here CAUSES problems because of the opportunity cost -- greater amounts of good could be done by directing the resources to addressing greater risks.
That's the big problem with the "if it saves just one child" thing. There's a finite amount of resources available, so we must prioritize and spend it on the places that will do the most good. Child abductions and Amber Alerts make good news copy, but addressing the more mundane dangers will give a better bang-for-the-buck, and save more people.
My argument, more generally, is that the amber may be a good bang for the buck. I am not against triage. But the very issue being critized, the media attention and cognitive stickiness of child abduction stories, are valuable in that they deter offenses, and that they raise awareness.
"Those concerned with and directly involved in advancing social good are rarely concerned with just one part of it."
Whatever gives you the impression I am not concerned with "advancing social good"? I am fucking obsessed with that cause, there is nothing more important in this world. The question is how you go about it - by rational measurement, analysis, and action for the greatest good for the greatest number, or by cheap fearmongering, scarecrow-raising, and appeals to nebulous sentimentality and doubtful external enemies?
"it's estimated that 9-32% of women and 5-10% of men were subject to sexual abuse during their childhoods"
If these statistics are accurate, then either we as a society are absolutely fucked, or the negative effects of child sexual abuse are grossly overstated. One in three women? Really?
"Do not, then, begrudge people of the interest in the safety of their children and community, of their charitable work, and of their fears."
Here you have inadvertently stumbled across the real thrust of the issue: "and of their fears". No, no, one thousand times NO! Their fears are irrelevant. What matters is facts, baby, numbers. Anything else and you are embarking on a superstition-fueled witch hunt.
You need to rethink your beliefs. Sorry to get personal, but I can sense that you care, and I want you to understand why I disagree. Let's look at these two statements of yours:
"Effectively? It is even, by many standards, economical. The economic loss of 27 children would almost certainly exceed the $30 million in funds nationally allocated to it."
and
"Particularly in South-East Asia and Eastern Europe, the sex trade is rampant -- Unicef estimates put it at 1 million young sold into the trade per year"
In one sentence you set the value of a child's life at $1m US dollars. Actually, the $30m is just the federal contribution, the states match it, so the value is actually higher - but for the sake of argument let's assume $1m.
How much are those children sold into slavery for? With the same amount, how many could you save? Off the top of my head I'd guess $1000 each for those kids. Research suggests less - much less - but let's assume $1k. So you can buy 30,000 lives for the cost of the amber alert program. That cool? One American kid roughly equates to 1,000 foreigners? Is that justice?
Yes, I'm oversimplifying here. It's not America's responsibility to take care of every basket case 3rd world country's unwanted young. But if we're going to get all moral and talk about saving lives, we have to admit that lives do have price tags on them. The amber alert price tag is way too high. The risk premise is irrational. It preys on nigh-unfounded populist fears. It encourages the wrong sort of thinking in the population. If you want to do good, there's lower hanging fruit everywhere. Hell, the fruit is lying right there on the ground! The price in some places isn't $1k, it's $100. I'd be buying them up myself if I could figure out what the hell to do with them. Oh for an "Illustrated Primer" and some ships. But the root cause is poverty .. like I said, this could turn into a book.
Your ghoulish calculus could take into account some of the other ways the country decides to spend its money. Saving 27 children seems like a better use of $30M compared to spending it on half of a failed banking executive's exit bonus.
Firstly, though I am not an author of that statistical study, I have seen nothing to contradict those numbers. The proportion could be as high as one in three. It has effected my friends and family.
Secondly, I agree that fearmongering is a questionable tactic. However, as. Seterent for crimes, it can be effective.
Third, I am not Mod Flanders. I am a physicist. I rely on quantitative analysis and triage.
Finally, I did not stumble into anything. My words are deliberate. Fears are powerful, pervasive, human, and in this case, can be a force for good.
http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/ncmain/ncdocs/fact_shts/fs_child_se...
Now that you've confirmed that you're being deliberately patronizing and holier than thou, it's fair to point out that folks who are "concerned with and directly involved in social good" have a tendency to be wrong and mindbogglingly destructive.
And no, "they meant well" isn't an excuse. It's actually an insult.
Worrying about unlikely threats and neglecting real threats does not make you holy. It is evil.
When lives are at stake, anything less than full rationality is costing lives, and no amount of irrational kvetching or socially-approved attacks trying to convince people to stop worrying about reality and instead worry about fiction can change that.
You may not be callous, but aren't you the true "bastard" here?
Amber alert: 227 amber alerts issued involving 278 children with 188 recoveries and 48 as a direct result of the alert being issued (see http://www.amberalert.gov/pdfs/07_amber_report.pdf)
Intentionally set structure fires: 32,500 fires, 295 deaths, $733 million in damage (http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/arson/index.shtm)
Overall fire statistics: 3430 dead, 17675 injured, 118 firefighters killed on duty, 1.6 million fires (see http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/quickstats/index.shtm).
I think the statistics speak for themselves.
Plus, I don't know where you're getting this "evil" thing. I didn't mention that anything is evil, more of a "do Amber Alerts actually work and how big of an impact do they have compared with the questions asked by this one person on HN?" I don't really have an opinion going either way on Amber alerts at the moment, I'm just giving you the numbers...the numbers taking into account fire alarms, firefighters responding, building safety codes, lifeguards, good samaritans, and more.
Just because Amber alerts are one way to approach the issue of child abductions doesn't mean it's the best way, doesn't mean it necessarily works, and doesn't mean that we should just go "oh look children are in danger you're evil if you don't support it!". It certainly does not mean we should be ignoring other dangers as well, such as fires and drowning and car accidents and more - what are those, the top three leading causes of accidental death in children? To do so is to be grossly irresponsible.
Another statistic: The CDC thinks using car seats and booster seats appropriately could halve the number of car related injuries, fatal and nonfatal, in children in the United States. This estimated number in one year may actually be larger than the number of children safely recovered thanks to an amber alert in more than the decade that has passed since the program started.
Last one, I promise: I don't dispute thousands of children do go missing every day, but even NCMEC's statistics are not grim: many children who do go missing are found again (http://www.ncmec.org/en_US/documents/Statistics.pdf). That is a testament to the wonderful work being done by NCMEC and law enforcement and people everywhere. Still doesn't mean Amber alerts can't be questioned for their effectiveness.
Mostly to try to snap snorkel out of his self-righteous irrational haze, but it doesn't seem to have worked.
Choosing bad priorities means you get sub-optimal results. snorkel, you can strawman and spin all you like, but silencio's statistics don't go away, and the simple and obvious fact that we do not rationally portion out our attention to the things that really kill children while focusing on the Hollywood threats kills hundreds or thousands a year. You keep trying to paint us as wrong, but you're the one standing on the side with the net corpse count. That you happen to be standing there with most of the rest of society is no virtue.
And your examples merely prove that you don't get my point in the slightest. If you think I'm against fire alarms, you need to stop emoting and start reading more carefully, and actually put some rational thought into it.
It is great to see that folks are beginning to realize that child abuse has become the scoundrels' moral panic mobilized of choice.
Auto accidents were first on the list of preventable forms of death for most ages last I checked (ten years ago) and they indeed don't get the OMG treatment.
What about google's app where you are sending your voice to google? Or maps where you send your position, or search where you send your desires (maps too)? Or loopt? Or countless games that don't save any children?
I'm sure the delay is related to the decision to filter app submissions at all. They probably haven't looked at it yet or are still trying to determine the network impact of running it or who knows. Maybe for potentially popular apps they do a code audit.
Getting notified by the fire alarm application is even easier. First, you just need to go to the App Store and download it onto your phone. Then, you just leave it constantly running on your phone instead of using your phone for anything it was designed for. Then you wait for somebody to "pull the alarm." And wait. And wait. (I recommend sitting by a window.)
Edit: Somebody emailed me this question:
Q: What about the vast majority of people that don't have iPhones? How will they be alerted? What about building it as a SMS service that would work on every phone? You know, like this existing government-created Amber Alert system for phones: http://www.amberalert.gov/wireless.htm.
A: I like playing with my iPhone and complaining about it publicly. I also enjoy self-promotion. The fire alarm app is just a means of pursuing these hobbies. I have no interest in distributing any kind of alerts to anybody besides iPhone users. The actual alerting is secondary to my interests anyway.
I don't want to self promote here, but those who are interested in the book I co-wrote about this should check out the link in my profile.
While I'm not defending apple's review policy because I'm sure its as terrible as everyone believes, I would prefer if all such applications got a lengthy review to ensure they're not doing anything they shouldn't be.
Personally I'm just waiting for a better variety of Android phones though, so if iphone users want to be bombarded by poorly reviewed applications I have no problem with it.
In reality, the effectiveness of Amber Alerts is quite debatable, and so the resources might be deployed to greater effect elsewhere.
Take, for example, this article: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/07/20/... "These are encouraging statistics - but also deeply misleading, according to some of the only outside scholars to examine the system in depth. In the first independent study of whether Amber Alerts work, a team led by University of Nevada criminologist Timothy Griffin looked at hundreds of abduction cases between 2003 and 2006 and found that Amber Alerts - for all their urgency and drama - actually accomplish little. In most cases where they were issued, Griffin found, Amber Alerts played no role in the eventual return of abducted children. Their successes were generally in child custody fights that didn't pose a risk to the child. And in those rare instances where kidnappers did intend to rape or kill the child, Amber Alerts usually failed to save lives."
For more concrete criticism, see the actual study: "Abstract The AMBER alert system is likely affected by a number of psychological processes, yet remains understudied. The system assumes people will remember Alert information accurately and notify police, but psychological research on related phenomena (e.g., memory, willingness to help) indicates that people may not be able or willing to act in ways the promote the success of the system. In addition, the system is intended to deter child abductions, however, the system could prompt copycat crimes from perpetrators seeking publicity. The system could also cause a precipitation effect in which a perpetrator who sees the Alert could decide to murder the child immediately to avoid capture. Policy recommendations are made based on psychological research and theory, although more research is needed to develop the most effective system possible." http://preview.tinyurl.com/bsg5mw (sorry, the link was ridiculously long)
I was once a shareware/freeware developer for the Mac platform back in the 68k era. The simple fact of the matter is that despite Apple's "big" size, in comparison with most of the computer industry, they are small potatoes. For over a decade, the primary development tools for Apple hardware were provided by third-parties even. (First Symantec, then Metrowerks.) This, combined with Apple's reluctance to take on debt (partly out of self-defense), means that Apple will never have the responsiveness towards developers that the open source community or even Microsoft has. Compared to back then, Apple is much more developer friendly, but the company has always been more focused on user experience, even if this leads them to try to shackle developers with overly limited or complicated APIs or UI conventions.
If the letter writer really thinks Apple is being that incompetent, he should give up on the iPhone as a platform and focus on the rest more accessible platforms. Yes, I know the goal is the maximize visibility for your cause, but the problem with any and all outreach efforts is that people naturally avoid information channels like this. Just as web readers migrated from SlashDot to Digg to Reddit to Hacker News, and social networking drifted from MySpace to FaceBook, the "popularity for its own sake" principle and the people it attracts alienate the very people you try to reach.
Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded.
- Yogi BerraYeah, it's funny how people get these notions of fairness and equal treatment from somewhere.
"Everybody should be equal" means that everybody ought to have an equal chance. That doesn't mean everybody should succeed equally. This idea that we should all be the same person is twisted and wrong and actively harmful.
This applies to phones, too. You have a choice of phone. You know what phone I use? It's this model by Samsung that doesn't allow any applications because I think applications on a standard phone are bunk. I don't complain. I like that my phone makes calls and sends text.
It's worth saying again, because people like you really like ignoring it to complain: Apple changed the mobile industry forever. The sheer existence of the iPhone changed the game plan of everybody else on the planet. Now the iPhone's been out for 2 years, and nobody has a user experience that comes close! I've used other multitouch phones. They're all pathetic. When the iPhone came out, it was the announcement of a vast reform in the way phones worked.
Apple didn't have applications. Nobody cared. Suddenly, Apple releases this App Store, which has become a hundred-million-app success in a year, and people are complaining because this magical thing they didn't have before is imperfect. It's like Louis C.K.'s routine. Everything is amazing, and yet nobody is happy, because we all feel entitled. (I'm not saying complaining is bad if it's constructive, but your response unlike the OP's was just lazy and fat and ugly and I hate that attitude.)
You don't like Apple? Go buy other phones. Buy one like mine, with small keys and a bad screen, because that's all you're getting from other groups until Apple made their phone. Revel in the lack of user experience. Note the lack of decent apps on those phones, too.
You want equal treatment, you'd better stop dealing with the human race. I was forced into working in groups for classes in school, under this notion that we all can contribute equal parts. I got worse grades in classes because people would mess things up. At some point I started doing all the work myself, because I couldn't stand this equal distribution. It made me into a manager rather than an employee. I prefer the auteur route, where unless you have somebody as smart as you working on something, you do it yourself and don't complain.
You don't like that? Say goodbye to art. Know who was dictatorial and unfair? Stanley Kubrick, who referred to actors as tools to be disposed of and who disliked all but a handful of actors (the rest of whom called him abusive). James Joyce, who produced two novels so complex that people refused to work fairly with them for years, who insisted on not compromsing his work. (Or Ayn Rand if you'd prefer something more "pop" - she refused the notion that anybody could edit her writing.) Pretty much everything awesome comes from somebody who's unfair and doesn't treat people equally and gets done the stuff that's supposed to get done.
Now buckle up and stop complaining unless you've got a better solution.*
*Switching to a worse phone system doesn't count as a solution.
I like Ayn Rand. Most people that read her go way too far with her ideas (once you start spouting lines from Atlas Shrugged verbatim, you've gone too far, and too many people go too far), but reading her at sixteen got me largely out of the depressive "I'm a cog in the school system" mood I was in, and it has that effect on a lot of people. As far as books worth reading as a young adult go, The Fountainhead is way up there. It gets you happier and healthier going out than you were coming in, and even once you lose that belief that Rand is right about everything, she's incredible pulp reading, up there with Dan Brown. (A pirate philosopher meets a dashing Spanish copper miner? Come on.)
"Apple didn't have applications. Nobody cared. " That's not so.
"You don't like Apple?" I never said that.
"Go buy other phones." I do.
Seriously, you got from "Delaying some applications randomly for three month or more is a bad business practice, it pisses people off" all the way over to "the great Stanley Kubrick and Ayn Rand were dictatorial and unfair and look how awesome they were"
Bottom line, you're a ranting about things that I didn't say, which is rather sad. It gives your views a bad name. And gives Ayn Rand's fans more of a bad name, if that's possible.
The Ayn Rand-bashing is stupid. Rand, like most people, is right about a lot and wrong about a lot. She's just more polarizing than others. Just as following her gospel verbatim isn't always the healthiest approach to life, dismissing her and the possibility that her ideas hold merit is similarly a waste of time.
Something being new does not in itself excuse it being bad. if the owner confesses to teething troubles, that would be a start.
I don't think that misunderstanding a statement (and I see that by voting consensus it's not seen as well-phrased) deserves anyone to get on their tangentially-related hobby horse and froth at the mouth.
You're right that Ayn Rand-bashing is stupid. Far too easy a target. But you brought it into the conversation. Why you did that, I will never know. If your aim was to make a point not related to her, you're better off not mentioning her. If your point is to promote her, I'm not interested.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/02/hunt_not_the_snark_b...
It is really easy to take anything and find the bad or imperfect parts of it.
I appreciate the app author's desire to create something that can enhance the AMBER alert system, I think that this app will be useless until the iPhone supports background processing.
And then, you know, since your phone has internet access you could just pull up their webpage or local news through safari.
"Open Letter to Apple, Inc., and Steve Jobs
To the Executive Team at Apple, and Steve Jobs,
The need to send an email such as this represents the magnitude of the problems the App Store faces, and everything that is wrong with its lengthy and ambiguous review process. The mere fact that a free utility that can quite possibly save lives cannot make it into people's hands within a reasonable amount of time is just a highlight of the ongoing problems independent developers like myself have been experiencing with Apple for the past year.
This letter is to make you aware of an application I've volunteered my time to engineer with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children - AMBER Alert. This App Store application has the potential to revolutionize how missing children are reported to law enforcement. By using the iPhone's GPS and some geo-analytics, we're able to build a number of automated logistics tools and quickly relay sightings to law enforcement agencies. With an audience of millions of iPhone users, the missing kids that are out there stand to gain a LOT more exposure.
Yet nearly a month has passed since my February 14th submission, and the application continues to sit "In Review". NCMEC has adapted their infrastructure to handle these submissions and has a call center trained to respond to them, as well as their CIO, regional directors, and many others ready to devote time to making this application successful - yet this entire team continues to wait on Apple to approve this application.
The App Store review process is non-responsive to a cruel degree, and unfortunately, a month is sadly only a small amount of time compared to some of my other applications that Apple has chosen to flat out ignore for three months or more. While spending time developing commercial applications only to face Apple's silence is frustrating, to have an application (like AMBER Alert) developed solely on a volunteer basis, and for such a good cause as finding kidnapped children - to have this non-profit application ignored is entirely insulting.
Is it the belief of many that these discriminating and opaque review processes are hurting Apple's relationship with independent developers - a demographic that once carried Apple for many years. With the advent of the Android store, the Blackberry store, and competing iPhone application stores such as the Cydia Store, continuing to operate in this mode of cold silence will only drive away more developers.
While these matters are better left for lengthier conversations, I'm asking that you pick up the phone today and help push the AMBER Alert application through. If you had to sit and look at these kidnapped children, as I have while working on this application, you'd realize just what a depraved world we live in, and how urgent it is to have an application like this be able to get information out (and sightings back in). As a developer and a human being, I'm anxious to see this application released. If I were the parent of one of these missing children, I would be beside myself with anger over Apple's apparent lack of interest in this application. The reprobate and fearful world these children are surviving in - if they are still surviving - may very well be prolonged because of Apple's lack of interest in independent developers like me.
Please feel free to contact me if you'd like to discuss this. Otherwise, I hope you'll do the right thing and light a fire under someone's seat in the App Store. If there is any application that should be getting reviewed today, this is it. I would be glad to put all of my other application submissions on hold to see this processed as soon as possible.
Jonathan Zdziarski"
Also, the first and second paragraphs are in the wrong order.
IIRC, the iPhone doesn't allow background applications. If that's true, how will an Amber alert application work for folks who have something else to do with their time (and iPhone)?
"I care more about my own righteous indignation than the children I purport to be interested in saving, so I'm going to publicly tweak the nose of the one company whose support I need the most."
"I'm hoping to goad Apple into action by focusing some public attention on them."
It might even work, if he posts it on a blog somewhere with proper formatting. Even "Content-type: text/html" would make the letter a lot more readable.
It would do Apple a world of good to democratize the app review process. Let the reviewers and customers decide what is App Store-worthy.
They say they have a call center of trained people waiting. That's expensive, so this would save them money. And it's a (small) win for Apple too.
When you want special service from a for-profit company, just do the obvious: pay them for it.
Public Pressure: Ridiculous
It is none of your competence why the AppStore has the guidelines they have in place.
It is not a good idea to try to cause a bad PR storm in order to get their attention.
If you need help, ask for it gently. They'll respond in accordance.
If you see an AMBER alert on the news, you will see it, and probably forget about it. You might see one on a site like www.woot.com but that is in a different state. Chances are you WONT REMEMBER IT.
Yet an application that can show you amber alerts for you current location would actually improve the chance that people would actually memorize the important faces and can always refer back to them immediately when seeing the child and boom press a button to submit a sighting or call immediately.
The fact that the information is readily available might be the missing key. Until now unless the picture is posted all over your neighborhood, you will have no idea that you just passed the abducted child.
The point is, this application has nothing but good intentions to the public good in mind, is free, is developed by volunteers, and can potentially do a lot of good in America... yet it is delayed for quite some time just because of apple's monopolizing process. The letter mostly points out that the apple store's only reason for being used is because there is no alternative, if one comes out or other platforms, it will be discarded because of apple's poor policies. The application is not perfect and the AMBER system in general has many theoretical flaws which are quite real even if given informational access through this app, but its not like this guy is making a profit from it.
We've still got genocide in Africa. How about we make a deal where if we're going to be melodramatic, we be melodramatic about something that matters?
[Citation Needed]
"115 children were the victims of “stereotypical” kidnapping. (These crimes involve someone the child does not know or someone of slight acquaintance, who holds the child overnight, transports the child 50 miles or more, kills the child, demands ransom, or intends to keep the child permanently.)"